Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When thebiglebow.ski is blocked by Facebook

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 264 posts

Re: When thebiglebow.ski is blocked by Facebook

#181

Post by chillacy »

callmeal wrote: post #87
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And where do you work? I can probably (almost certainly) find serious ethical lapses in your company, if it's large and/or has been around for a long time. Shaming people based on their perceived associations is just wrong, no matter what those associations.

>Shaming people based on their perceived associations is just wrong, no matter what those associations. Uh, there's a whole group of people at the end of WWII who would disagree with you.

Unless they were useful, then in that case their associations suddenly didn't matter... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Re: When thebiglebow.ski is blocked by Facebook

#182

Post by prof-dr-ir »

nanis wrote: post #151
s_fischer wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that the OP did not stop at "I am confused, can someone explain this discrepancy to me?" They went on to make seemingly unconfused assumptions that the translator must have misspelled his own name in an article about misspelling names.

The reason for my assumption is the explicit statement: > The company changes his name to ‘Hans De Zwart’, with a capitalized D. A small annoyance, but for De Zwart it signifies something bigger ... which seems to imply pretty unambiguously that using "D" is incorrect. Assuming that all the information I have is what is contained in the article, this is confusing.

Seemingly completely reasonable... but I think your assumption can be classified under falsehood number 7 (People's names do not change) in https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-... which was linked above.

Re: When thebiglebow.ski is blocked by Facebook

#183

Post by wang_li »

tomp wrote: post #142
iudqnolq wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the pattern of names in the UI comes from wanting to justify collecting the name in the first place. What is it actually good for?

Indeed. I consider "gender" even sillier - e.g. Facebook adding 100s of different genders to their website - how about just removing the field altogether? Same about "legal sex" - why would the government care in the first place?! ( Doctors might, but the rest of the government, not really.)

Different sexes have different civic obligations. E.g. Selective Service, a.k.a the draft, in the US.

Re: When thebiglebow.ski is blocked by Facebook

#184

Post by PragmaticPulp »

duxup wrote: post #160

>The website has all this time been incorrectly labelled “by our automated tools” as spam, according to the spokesperson. “Our apologies for the inconvenience.” It seems the large tech companies just have a policy to automate as much as possible and if it impacts some folks unfairly, that's just how it works and they've no interest in dealing with it unless it gets PR. Otherwise screw those little people. I had a dom…

> It seems the large tech companies just have a policy to automate as much as possible

Mistakes happen at scale regardless of whether it's automated or human-controlled. Having actual humans do the work is hardly a magic bullet, because people make mistakes frequently as well. Worse yet, humans are more prone to being compromised or acting maliciously, such as in recent attacks on prominent companies.

It's not so much as a policy as a necessity. Facebook's number of users is counted in the billions. They have about 50,000 users for each Facebook employee.

Most importantly: People aren't paying Facebook. It's just not realistic to expect a free platform serving billions of users to have 100% perfect execution.

Re: When thebiglebow.ski is blocked by Facebook

#185

Post by wvenable »

the8472 wrote: post #137
edmundsauto wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there sites that have done this at scale? Reddit and Wikipedia come to mind as counter examples, where the people with the most time and desire for power end up doing almost all the moderation.

I don't see the issue with reddit. People can vote with their feet if they don't like the local lords.

Many city, state, and even country subreddits have been taken over by right-wing moderators. This has been a coordinated process over many years. And while you can create new subreddit for your country easily you're still can't be /r/canada.

Re: When thebiglebow.ski is blocked by Facebook

#186

Post by nine_k »

duxup wrote: post #160

>The website has all this time been incorrectly labelled “by our automated tools” as spam, according to the spokesperson. “Our apologies for the inconvenience.” It seems the large tech companies just have a policy to automate as much as possible and if it impacts some folks unfairly, that's just how it works and they've no interest in dealing with it unless it gets PR. Otherwise screw those little people. I had a dom…

Making things right 100% of the time costs a ton. Sometimes the business is willing to pay: something related to money or legal compliance, the serious stuff.

Sometimes it's cheaper to have things work, say, 90% of time, and maybe manually fix some stuff when badly needed, on a best-effort basis. Often it's the only viable way. Usually, if there's no written contract, best-effort is the only treatment you can expect. (Even Google's support is said to be much better for paid users.)

Re: When thebiglebow.ski is blocked by Facebook

#187

Post by kokey »

barrkel wrote: post #93
kokey wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the problem anyone who moderates a system faces, when the users vastly outnumbers the moderators your moderation has to have some level of opaqueness and unpredictability or else you have no chance of keeping up with people gaming the system.

Or you delegate. Grant trusted individuals power to moderate sub-communities. How do you ensure you select trusted individuals? Create institutional mechanisms with accountability and checks and balances; e.g. community voting to bestow time-limited power on individuals, and appeal boards to as a check on abuses of that power, and perhaps recall votes to remove someone. Opaqueness isn't the answer. Opaqueness leads t…

That's certainly a great strategy if you have those options available. However, if you can't maintain a certain moderator to user ratio then that's going to be impossible.

Re: When thebiglebow.ski is blocked by Facebook

#189

Post by cycomanic »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #184
duxup wrote: post #160

>The website has all this time been incorrectly labelled “by our automated tools” as spam, according to the spokesperson. “Our apologies for the inconvenience.” It seems the large tech companies just have a policy to automate as much as possible and if it impacts some folks unfairly, that's just how it works and they've no interest in dealing with it unless it gets PR. Otherwise screw those little people. I had a dom…

> It seems the large tech companies just have a policy to automate as much as possible Mistakes happen at scale regardless of whether it's automated or human-controlled. Having actual humans do the work is hardly a magic bullet, because people make mistakes frequently as well. Worse yet, humans are more prone to being compromised or acting maliciously, such as in recent attacks on prominent companies. It's not so muc…

I hear this argument all the time, but Facebook is one of the richest companies in the world so they could definitely afford to hire some more people that could look at complaints. They just choose not to because they don't care. If it suddenly would affect their bottom line I bet you they would hire people very quickly.

Re: When thebiglebow.ski is blocked by Facebook

#190

Post by jdofaz »

marricks wrote: post #146
jdofaz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried that for a while, I would go months without logging in, but for one reason or another I would log in to check something. The last time I did this my news feed left me feeling so negative I decided that I was done and I deleted my account. So far it has been easier to say "I don't have a facebook account" than to explain why I never post anything or answer did you see what I posted questions.

I really wonder why anyone advocates "not logging in" and if it's ever in good faith? Something always drags you back and it's just a quick step to get sucked in again. I tried to use it less and it just never worked, FB pays billions to optimize sucking you back in. Deleted my account and it was perfect, no emails, no getting drawn if, if someone wants to talk with me there's a dozen chat service to choose from besi…

For my close contacts, group chats (with notifications muted) have replaced social media sharing
Post reply on HN